So, person A is making a name for hirself as an advocate for oppressed groups M and N. Person B, an ex of person A, says, "Hold on, this person raped me at a con, they aren't as pure as they claim to be". Person C, a friend, and probably now lover of person B, says "Yes, I was there, it was baaaad" and describes something eerily similar to a previous case described in fandom circles a couple years ago, with different people, and then spreads this among groups that are innately hostile to groups M and N. Person A says "I've been accused, I admit no guilt, see you in court." essentially "I won't play along with trial by net."

These accusations come immediately on the heels of person A's success - not a surprise, I guess, since such things tend to bring skeletons out of closets. But the fact that person A had a ton of nasty harassing phone calls just the week or two before, to the point that they had to involve the police and change their number, and that they were also subscribed to a slew of disgusting porn email lists, makes the timing a bit more... suspect.

What's worse is, A, B and C are into BDSM, so at the time, C supposedly wasn't sure if it was a "scene" or not. But there was no scene monitor, but they may not play that way.

But the whole thing just reeks of a virtual lynch mob, and I feel that degrades accusers in rape cases. Just like the Julian Assange thing felt like the rape accusation was only useful as a political tool to "get" Assange.

Was there rape? I don't know. Was there miscommunication? Yes, from what I've read! Is that miscommunication rape? I can't say, and I hate that I can't. In a BDSM scene context, "no" may not mean "no", the safeword does.

But I can't jump in with both boots on person C's say-so. Person B didn't ask for that, and they are the only one with the right.

People who know me know I often take the side of the underdog. When I see sharks circling and people throwing around slurs due to this kind of accusation being made, I start to think that there's more in play than simple justice and wanting to warn people against trusting this person's activist credentials.

Person A hasn't made any brownie points with me either, posting hir accuser's whole name in public in what limited response they have made. So that stinks too.

Now, someone whose opinion I trust has said that person A has a history of not respecting boundaries. That I will believe, because the person who has said it is credible to me. That kind of behavior can lead to rape, and needs to stop.

The worst actors on the drama front are person C and the chorus of hate and drama. The jerking knees, the instant "off with their head" condemnation, and rush to judgment make me furious, and wade in with both rhetorical fists swinging.

Would I share a room at a con with either A, B or C? Not a chance - I don't want any part of their drama. Would I 86 any of them from a con I ran? No, because my standard of proof hasn't been met, either for rape or excess drama. Would I invite any of them to a party? No, too much drama for my personal comfort.

I've left names and specifics out of this for a reason: The issue is really a meta one, of where the line is on the use of rape accusations as a political tool, both in real world politics, ala Assange, and in fannish politics.

Rape accusations are a special breed of criminal accusation in our society, because of the twisted culture that makes "consent" a murky mess, because of the intersection of reputation and crime, because of the "he said, she said" nature, because some people assume consent where it isn't, because some people believe in "surprise sex" as sex, and a whole lot of other reasons. But using it as a political weapon is abhorrent to me. It trivializes it, IMO, and that's wrong.

I must apologize to the person whose journal that some of my objections to this erupted in. They didn't deserve to end up at the nexus of my fury at the level of wank this whole thing has engendered.

Tags:

Comments

>> But using it as a political weapon is abhorrent to me. It trivializes it, IMO, and that's wrong.

Agreed. Believe it or not, one of the more elegant slanders used against members of the civil rights movement in the 1960s, with great success, was that they engaged in homosexual acts in restrooms. One informant willing to drop trou at the right moment, one dirty cop in the right place at the right time, one destroyed career.

Thus my interest in something between a human rights commission and a board of appeal for certain fannish communities. There has to be a middle ground between the virtual lynch mob and a criminal prosecution.

Believe it or not, one of the more elegant slanders used against members of the civil rights movement in the 1960s, with great success, was that they engaged in homosexual acts in restrooms. One informant willing to drop trou at the right moment, one dirty cop in the right place at the right time, one destroyed career.

Even the hint of "sexual misconduct" still destroys careers. Look at the furor about an idiot tweeting dirty pictures of himself to someone. No physical contact, but a career is toasted. Is it smart, highbrow conduct? No, but it sure gets blown out of proportion fast.

I don't want to sweep it under the rug, that would not bee good either. But I don't want passive-aggressive spurned lovers to use it to easily trash people, either. I've heard it used as a "joking" threat against others, and it has made my blood run cold.

Well, I've already ended up in some of it by pointing out the my doubts on the thing. How dare anyone question a net.accusation that has engendered heaps of abuse and savagery against the accused from all the usual suspects, after all! Because we know no one makes shit up on the net, right?

Person B has posted what purport to be emails from person A that are made to appear to be an admission of guilt. Person A has posted chat logs from person B that are contradictory to that, and a bit passive-aggressive. Person C has been downright vicious toward anyone who dares ask hir motives in "boosting the signal". The whole relationship is a trainwreck, and I feel as if C is enjoying the "Get A" part, both A and B do not have good communication and are better not in a relationship (even without the rape issue involved), plus A has some pretty serious emotional issues hirself.

Well basically, kynn is just showing that she has absolutely no respect for boundaries when it comes to people that she doesn't respect. Because of this allegation several people have been coming out to accuse her of harassment, making threatening phone calls, posting private information and acting like a bully in every forum that she's in.

She has always been an aggressive asshole who used feminism and political purity to advance her own agenda which has been to beat everyone into submission.

It cuts across all cultures and subcultures. It just becomes easier to pull off in insular subcultures that distrust the dominant culture. My uncle's first boyfriend would abuse him on a regular basis. The Brooklyn Chasidic Jews allow rape and spousal abuse to prosper in their communities just because they don't trust the police or the goyish courts.

It happens. ANd it's very easy to dismiss the charges against someone that you like on the basis that they are just being prosecuted by oppressors. There are always excuses that you can make and the manipulative sociopaths always have ways of letting you think that those excuses are more valid than the evidence that you see before your eyes.

The very real problem is that the courts aren't prepared to deal with "straight" rape cases, much less gay, poly, trans, BDSM, etc. But there has to be an alternative to the net.court circus that this has become.

Your grandmother used to tell me that Confucious say there can be no rape because woman can run faster with skirts up than man can with pants down. Of course, that was always obsolete to me because women have worn pants too ever since I was a child. I always have said No means No and not maybe. Unfortunately, there are some people, and I know this is not limited to the male of our species, who believe that a hug, a kiss, or a shared meal means sex then becomes their entitlement instead of an act needing consent from both or all participants, and needing it each time it is done. Anything else is rape --- period. Yes, in BDSM there can be a question of the meaning of no, but unless another stop phrase has been agreed upon BEFORE the act, no still means no, unless one wishes to be accused of rape.

As for accusations of rape being used as a political weapon, well, what else is new? JFK, Clinton, and, quite frankly, at least Andy Jackson before them have all been plagued by accusations of sexual misconduct. Suddenly we have become real prudes where our politicians are concerned --- which is very different from what once was just winked at and ignored, a la JFK and friends with Marilyn Monroe and others. Texting pictures of a penis would once have been laughed at and noted as just the way Weiner was weird instead of ruining his career. The pendulum has swung way to the prude side. I'm not sure that is wise, or realistic, given the history of the sexual appetites of most men, and some of the women, of power, particularly political power, in our society over the past century or so. Demanding absolutely chaste sexual behavior and absolute marital or relationship fidelity from our politicians may not get us the most effective leaders for our country. While safe sex is important, given it as an absolute, there is much to be said for the sexual freedom allowed and practiced in the 1960's and 1970's. It was fun and eliminated much of the sexual (pardon the reference) witch hunt mentality that seems to exist today. We've come a long way in accepting gays and lesbians. Now we just have to realize that people actually have sex and as long as it is consentual on the part of all parties involved it doesn't need to be villanized in any way, political, marital or fandom-al! Hell! Next they'll be banning vibrators and sex toys at the rate some of the prudes are going.

By the way, in the above scenario, A may be able to get more legal traction by claiming cyberstalking along with hir's other legal claims. Also, someone is trying to say that you are Kynn in one of the meme groups. I think I cleared that up for them, especially since they had already checked out your photo on your Ravan A-----s site. They are weird at the very least. Love to you and your roomies! Peace ---- Mamasan

Yeah, I only know Kynn online, and vaguely at that, and I tend not to pay attention to drama and what sounds like gossip.

I don't require a dossier on someone to follow their journal. I've found Kynn's posts to be interesting, as far as they go. The fact that she dislikes Sh*tt*rly is interesting, considering how similar they turn out to be.

BTW, this entry is not nearly as snide as I can be - some of it is deadly serious.

kynn is a master of the cyberstalking having been quite adapt at it when using it on other people.

Of course, rape is not just sexual misconduct. Obviously, you are the kind of person that would claim that Roman Polanski was also innocent of those "accusations of sexual misconduct" because what kind of prudish society do we live in where a 38 year old man can't get a 14 year old drunk and feed her drugs and then force himself on her sexually while she's crying and begging to go home without some prudes calling it rape.

That's the kind of logic that you're pushing here and you are a willing accomplice.

Rape is not the only kind of sexual misconduct. Abuse is a continuum, and to elevate rape to the only thing that "counts" is disingenious too. Other shit has come out that indicates that there's more than just rape here.

I don't know the facts of the Roman Polanski case, but it sounds disgusting.

Obviously you didn't really read what I wrote, or read it thinking it was "Kynn" that wrote it as some sort of sock puppet cover-up, like you'd been led to believe.

The anon's on f_fa are having a field day with this whole thing, like a pack of hungry dogs who've just been fed a pack of meat.

If Kynn wasn't fucked up before (which she was), she sure is now - who will push her to get counseling and learn to respect people's boundaries? Any person who even follows her journal is pilloried by the howling mob. She'll go off and find another community, and the cycle will start again. People have so much invested in tearing her apart that she now will play the "nobody loves me, I'm a tragic martyr for my cause" card, and point to the crap on LJ and forums to back it up.

That's why I had left names out of this, because then hopefully no one could use it for martyr points, because they couldn't prove it was about them.